BACK ISSUES:
INDEX

THE MEDIA ON
THE WEB

ETHICS WATCH

JOURNALISM DISCUSSION FORUM

SURVEYS

JOBLINK

SITES OF INTEREST

ABOUT PULSO

E-MAIL

Freedom of expression victory in Puerto Rico
By Luis Alberto Ferré Rangel

``It would seem obvious,'' the federal appeals court said, ``that using government funds to punish political speech by members of the press and to attempt to coerce commentary favorable to the government would run afoul of the First Amendment.''

Obvious, perhaps. But it required 25 months, a massive litigation effort and a bitter confrontation with Puerto Rico's governor for the newspaper that I edit, El Nuevo Dia, to prove that First Amendment principles can survive an onslaught from elected officials. This week we settled the lawsuit against Gov. Pedro Rosselló and six of his associates. The terms were clear: Economic warfare against El Nuevo Dia would cease immediately; recognition of the right to publish without risking economic retaliation; and no future use of the government's advertising budget to influence news coverage.

This is a victory for press freedom and public access to coverage unpolluted by political interference. But the conflict also reminds how fragile these rights can be. In late 1996, our paper launched vigorous coverage of public affairs. We published investigative and analytical articles that described misuse of taxpayers' funds in government operations.

In April 1997, we published an appraisal of the first 100 days of the governor's second term. Apparently that precipitated the governor's general offensive. The day after the piece appeared, 18 government agencies canceled advertising commitments worth $6 million. Other retaliations followed, including denial of generally available information.

One tactic was truly astonishing. Without pretense to due process, government regulators began to penalize Puerto Rican Cement Co., a publicly held corporation in which my family has a stake. Existing permits for two construction projects abruptly were withdrawn. Innocent bystanders, including the stockholders and employees of the cement company, were hurt. Through intermediaries, we received messages that if our coverage became more sympathetic to the governor, the economic pressures on the paper and cement company would ease. We refused. After eight months of tension -- and significant financial losses -- we sued in federal court.

`Blatant' abuses

The First Circuit District Court of Appeals, in an important precedent, ruled last November that the cement company also had standing to sue on First Amendment grounds even though the newspaper's free-expression rights were the original focal point. The court rejected the governor's petition for ``qualified immunity'' from the lawsuit. In January, the court called the abuses blatant.

The governor's defense began to crack. The judge suggested settlement negotiations, which ultimately led to an agreement. This fight had high costs and many victims. Among them: Puerto Rican taxpayers, who are paying several million dollars for the defendants' legal bills; workers kept off the job by cancellation of the cement company's projects; hundreds of low-income people whose new housing has been delayed for two years.

The principles at stake were too important for us to ignore. But the fact that it had to be made, and that others may face similar battles, should be troubling to all of us.

(May 16th, 1999)